Obama’s Stealth Islamification of America [Reader Post]

There often things you hear that, while you’d love to think that they’re true, you don’t allow yourself the luxury of believing. Sometimes they’re plain silly, and sometimes it’s uphill in a politically correct sense. But sometimes events follow such an interesting and distinct course that those apparent frivolities return to your mind and coalesce. And when they do, they’re not so silly any longer.

Let’s begin here (where we will return later)White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them

and this is key:

After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gave his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network, saying that when it comes to Middle East matters “all too often the United States starts by dictating.”

At Egypt’s Cairo University, Obama quoted from the Quran as he expounded on Islam’s glories and rights, the legitimate rights of Israel and the Palestinians, Iranian nuclear aspirations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, women’s rights, economic development, and religious rights and democracy in the Muslim world.

Washington — President Obama has said he seeks a new beginning with Muslims worldwide “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect” and also “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.

* Controversial scholar Tariq Ramadan entered the U.S. for the first time in six years after being barred by the Bush administration.

* The Obama administration has dispatched American Nobel Prize winners to advise Muslim scientists, economists and other professionals on how to improve their research and better manage their institutions.

* At the end of this month, the U.S. government will host some 500 mainly Muslim business people for intensive seminars on entrepreneurship.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

During the Presidential campaign both the White House and the press promptly attacked anyone who even hinted of Barack Obama’s Muslim background.

Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.

One year ago in June 2008, Floyd produced a television ad which asked the simple question, “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?” The Obama campaign came unglued. It earned Floyd prominent placement on a special Obama Web site called “Fight the Smears.”

The news media jumped on the bandwagon. Newsweek reported: “Barack Obama has never been Muslim and never practiced Islam. But rumors about his religion intended to frighten some voters persist, and they mostly return to one point of fact: his name.” The Boston Globe wrote: “Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. His Kenyan paternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim, but he attended secular and Catholic schools and was never a practicing Muslim.”

The attacks on Floyd grew personal; Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, all but called Floyd a racist, saying, “This guy hides under a rock every couple generations, shows up again with another ad against a black candidate.” (There never was a black nominee to do ads against before Obama, but facts are not important to Matthews.) Obama even blamed Floyd for breaking his pledge to use public financing for his campaign saying, “527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we’ve seen them — there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown I think where it took a speech that I had made extolling faith and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation.”

But once Obama was elected, his Muslim background took the stage:

In Cairo, Egypt in his highly anticipated speech to the Muslim world Barack Obama quoted the Quran as commanding, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” He then said he shared that conviction, as “rooted in my own experience.”

After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

The Presidential election of 2008 would likely have had a very different result had Obama extolled his Muslim background. It would have been interesting had Obama promised he would bend over backwards for Muslim countries. You want to dismiss the “stealth” aspect of all of this except for the most recent event. That was the clincher. The retasking of a Federal agency for the purpose of massaging the self-esteem of Muslim nations is dramatic. Krauthammer called it “childish” but it’s worse than that. It’s as though all of the worst fears are coming to pass.

NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

But not any longer. Now the NASA mission is to “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

Would Obama have been elected had he been honest and told Americans that he planned to shut down the manned space program and use its budget to make Muslim countries feel good? Would he have been elected had he told America that it could be considered to be a “Muslim” nation? Would he have been elected had he promised that he planned to install “devout Muslims” in high level national security positions ?

I think not. I think this country elected the most dishonest man ever to sit in the White House. Of course they will be those who dismiss this opinion. But who among them would have told you that Obama would turn NASA into a Muslim nation nurture center? What’s next? Will Obama order the Department of Education to focus only on the importance of Muslim nations? Really-how far away is that possibility?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.

ilovebeeswarzone

WORDSMITH: hi, I can see YOU where focusing to be the one to hit the 100th number:
I was trying also to do it; BUT I have to say that you surely hit it with a grand way of expressing
thoses views, that it’s so easy to loose the prime focus while we get to comment on hot subjects like YOU all AUTHORS bring to us, AS you all capture our interest on your many POST:
IT show that we are all a good groups eager to take big chunk in the food YOU all AUTHORS serve at the table which we are gracefully invited to share:
I would have been hurt if you would have not address to my name along with the others:
I will conclude that you will have to be more present from now on while MATA takes her time out
because we will continue to debate, and our blood will continue to get hot at times;
SO we’ll look for your comments, when we get ready to break the dishes and the table.
thank you for the wisdom talk. bye

GaffaUK

@Wordsmith

The post you gave up on? lol

We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time

I think that’s a lazy excuse for the mistakes and the abuses of the past. Of course we have a different view now – but history isn’t always a march towards more progressive (small p) values. And how do we remove ourselves from our armchairs? So we can’t criticise the past now unless we have a time machine?

Do we excuse the Nazi’s because they didn’t know any better – and things were different then? Lol. One way to look through the window of the past is to look at the writing of the time – and see what opposition there was against percieved norms. Slavery was hotly debated at the time. Surely it wouldn’t take much of a deep Christian thinker who cherished their freedom that to own other people and forcibly make them work was wrong. To own and break up families – even separate children from their mothers in some case – was wrong then as it is now. I pretty sure those slaves would of felt pain and loss as keenly as if that had happened today.

I don’t have a problem with mosques. Just another brain-washing centre along with churches. For those who disagree with Sharia Law – I wonder if they also disagree with Jewish Courts (Beth Din) which operate in the UK and US? There are no legalised beheadings etc in UK as part of Sharia Law! I would rather there was no Sharia Law or Beth Din – as justice should be secular – with one size fits all. I wish there was no state funded Christian, Jewish or Muslim schools either – teaching myths to children – forced to listen to such tripe under the guise of ‘culture’.

Wordsmith

We look back from our arm chairs today and many make harsh judgments about the decisions made at that time

I think that’s a lazy excuse for the mistakes and the abuses of the past. Of course we have a different view now – but history isn’t always a march towards more progressive (small p) values. And how do we remove ourselves from our armchairs? So we can’t criticise the past now unless we have a time machine?

This is exactly what I referred to. I might as well ram my head repeatedly against the nearest brick wall. There’s nothing to add that hasn’t already been said repeatedly in that other thread. If you don’t “get it”, you don’t get it.

Do we excuse the Nazi’s because they didn’t know any better – and things were different then? Lol. One way to look through the window of the past is to look at the writing of the time – and see what opposition there was against percieved norms. Slavery was hotly debated at the time. Surely it wouldn’t take much of a deep Christian thinker who cherished their freedom that to own other people and forcibly make them work was wrong. To own and break up families – even separate children from their mothers in some case – was wrong then as it is now. I pretty sure those slaves would of felt pain and loss as keenly as if that had happened today.

Uh….yeah? And in the Christian world of Britain and the U.S., the first real anti-slavery movement was begun. Didn’t begin 1600-1800 yrs earlier. Well, actually it did…but the process took a while, didn’t it?

ilovebeeswarzone

WORDSMITH: NO NO NO and no, we wont let you get away from your responsability to moderate this groups of HARD HEADS, just think of us a bit instead of yourself; BEING selfish wont solve your problems, and running away either, we need you here or we will cut your paycheck. bye

Tory

It is disingenuously muddying the waters by interjecting the irrelevant, seemingly mandatory, snidely intellectually dishonest jab at Christianity and its perceived overarching dogma of hypocrisy and bigotry; it’s not clear why some continue to believe that some abuses or misapplications of theological dogma are a basis from which to sweepingly dismiss a religion and or its proponents as a whole. Tit for tat doesn’t really cut it. Poor Mother Teresa of Calcutta…a life’s work for nought, having labored under the auspices of institutionalized bigotry and groupthink. Similarly, your comments about American slavery betray a deep ignorance of the moral and pragmatic debates over both the practice of slavery itself and how best to remedy an institution that was, for obvious reasons, problematic on so many levels. It also betrays an ignorance or a willful omission of the reality involving the vital sway Islamic traders and tribal heads held in the slave trade. Also ignored is the fact that tribunals, Beth Din, et al., function as arbitration venues ultimately subservient to civil law and whose scope is limited to matters of spiritual and comparatively mundane civil issues. The same can not be said of Shariah, neither in theory nor in practice, as civil law is held as subservient to civil law. The fact that there is no such thing as “legalized” beheadings is entirely irrelevant ( nor is that strictly true under interpretation of Shariah); there is no such thing as “legalized” burglary, rape, murder, arson, in civil law yet they all occur with dismaying frequency.

To accurately compare Beth Din courts, or even Roman Catholic tribunals, to Sharia courts would also involve acknowledging the patently disparate differences between the Judeo-Christian systems, which are primarily spiritual and independent of any codified legal system such as is essential to Islam…faithful practice of Islam is contingent upon affirming Sharia.

The good imam heading the infamous Ground Zero “cultural center” is on record as affirming his affinity with “fundamental” Islam and explicitly condones his wish for Shariah. The funding for this “cultural center”, intended, we are told, to engender a good feeling in and from the local community, is, thus far, primarily or completely through unnamed foreign sources. Connecting the dots in regard to funding again, as in the Roxbury facility, points to a series of donations and transactions tracing back to various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now a global population of 1.2 to 1.5 billion Muslims, a full 10% of whom candidly support militant jihad…over 100 million Muslims, not operating under the doctrine of taqiyya, openly acknowledge militant jihad (read as “terrorism”). Global jihad is ostensibly reprehensible, but it couldn’t. wouldn’t,hasn’t ever extended domestically…has it?

Tory

I”d like to clarify an error I made in my previous post…the editing window is glitchy and jumpy and I couldn’t seem to capture and correct the phrase I wrote that rather makes no sense! I intended to say that Shariah dictates the subservience of civil law to it. Sorry for the confusion and possible headscratching…

GaffaUK

@Wordsmith

Oh yes I get why certain people and organisations like the Texas schools Board want to rewrite and dumb history down. In that particular case they want to rename the Slave Trade to The Atlantic Triangular Trade. They are too uncomfortable with the past and want to paper over the crack with revisions from their armchair. Why be an apologist for evil?

The US and Britain getting lauded over banning slavery is like BP getting lauded when and if they finally plug all the oil pumping out into the Gulf of Mexico. If you make a mess – clear it up. And because so and so – also did it doesn’t make it a valid excuse for the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.

@Tory

Nope – I’m being serious here. Christians are being hypocrites in a lot of the issues wrapped up in the panic against muslims. Just look at the history of Christianity & Islam and look at the Bible as well as the Koran – both books incite and encourage acts of violence against others. Fortunately thanks to such things as the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the seperation of Church and State, democracy and the rise of secularism in the West – the worst aspects of Christianity have been contained. What the islamic world (a religion centuries younger than Christianity) desperately needs is a similar process so the vast majority of peaceful muslims can continue to practise their faith whilst the radical nutters are isolated.

Yes slavery was ‘problematic’. Interesting word you use. Why not use ‘rephrensible’ as you do when refering to jihad? Was slavery problematic because Southerners wanted labour on the cheap and didn’t care for the ‘unalienable’ rights of others? I’m not ignorant of the islamic slave traders – but you don’t care for tit-for-tat and then use that yourself! lol.

So where in the UK is Sharia Law not subservient to civil law? As far as I can see (and I’m not from the jewish or islamic community) the Sharia Law and Beth Din in the UK both deal with the same relatively mundane matters. Sharia Law is more eye catching because people associate it in how it is carried out in the Middle East. My point with beheadings – is that is accepted in other countries with Sharia Law but not in the UK. As I say – I would rather both were banned – wouldn’t you?

ilovebeeswarzone

GAFFA UK: ON your99, the CHRISTIANS could easyly have come with the idea of building a church, but out of RESPECT not COMPETITION, refrained because of so many who belong to many
DIFFRENT religions from all over the globe ,where mourning their loved ones and will
continiue to do so for generations to come, as so much blood was spilled from thoses terrorists
criminals. that is why, there should’nt be nothing connected cloose or far with the terrible disaster
of 9/11, nothing should be built,that will be connecting by association their minds with the actions of the criminals. IN the NAME of DECENCY and RESPECT for fellow AMERICANS and other
who where from other COUNTRYS,

GaffaUK

@Ilovesbees

If you are refering to Ground Zero then I agree – I don’t believe a Mosque should be built there as that would be insensitive and unnecessary. But for other areas in the world including the US where there are religious communities – then I don’t see why they can’t build their places of worship.

ilovebeeswarzone

ilovebeeswarzone

GAFFA UK: one more thought, we must not forget that, there where no protest from the muslims in AMERICA no protest from the ImANS in AMERICA against 9/11, nor the buiding of that MOSQUE.
no news of protestation against the Mosque, they are all for it?. who say otherwise?. bye

Wordsmith

editor

@ilovebeeswarzone #109 and Missy #111: Thanks for the kind words. I’m not intentionally trying to shirk my blogging “responsibilities”; but I’ve been rather on the decline for sometime in terms of keeping up with the reading and the researching; and have almost all but abandoned commenting and protracted debates. Just other priorities in life are taking center stage. I know you yourself, Missy, have been busy.

Rauf’s ideas on Sharia- are they the same ones held by salafis, wahhabis, the Taliban, and other “radical” fundamentalists? Or is his version more of the “new agey” “Islam is a religion of peace” ilk? I don’t know. Is it relevant to the argument against the “mosque” at Ground Zero what kind of Sharia he believes in?

Tory continues:

The funding for this “cultural center”, intended, we are told, to engender a good feeling in and from the local community, is, thus far, primarily or completely through unnamed foreign sources. Connecting the dots in regard to funding again, as in the Roxbury facility, points to a series of donations and transactions tracing back to various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I haven’t followed the latest developments on this story (nor read Mike’s recent post today), but last we left off, Mata did her own snooping and it looks like the associations are being stretched by agenda-driven opponents to the building of the Ground Zero mosque. It smacks more of believing in what you want to believe and shaping/distorting/stretching the facts to connect the dots you hope are there.

Oh yes I get why certain people and organisations like the Texas schools Board want to rewrite and dumb history down. In that particular case they want to rename the Slave Trade to The Atlantic Triangular Trade. They are too uncomfortable with the past and want to paper over the crack with revisions from their armchair. Why be an apologist for evil?

Oh, please…lol. Liberals have been indoctrinating us for decades with distortions on American history. I’m not happy with religious, “rightwing” slant; but it’s a step up from the Zinnish self-loathing version of American history.

The US and Britain getting lauded over banning slavery is like BP getting lauded when and if they finally plug all the oil pumping out into the Gulf of Mexico. If you make a mess – clear it up. And because so and so – also did it doesn’t make it a valid excuse for the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.

Naw, you still don’t get it. You really don’t, Gaffa. You think you do, but every time you repeat yourself, you reveal that you’re just not capable of getting past ‘stuck on stupid”.

Where else in the world before Britain and the U.S. do you see evidence of any anti-slavery movement? They deserve unique credit, not unique blame for starting the movement. Setting that record straight doesn’t diminish the guilt of participation. But in a world that had only known slavery as a well-established institution, it was first Christian evangelicals, and then the whole western hemisphere that began questioning and recognizing the evils of slavery.

GAFFA UK: one more thought, we must not forget that, there where no protest from the muslims in AMERICA no protest from the ImANS in AMERICA against 9/11, nor the buiding of that MOSQUE.
no news of protestation against the Mosque, they are all for it?. who say otherwise?. bye

bees, there were and have been Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terrorism after 9/11. And Dr. Jasser and his group are Muslims opposed to the building of the Ground Zero “mosque”.

GaffaUK

@Wordsmith

Naw, you still don’t get it. You really don’t, Gaffa. You think you do, but every time you repeat yourself, you reveal that you’re just not capable of getting past ’stuck on stupid”.

Where else in the world before Britain and the U.S. do you see evidence of any anti-slavery movement? They deserve unique credit, not unique blame for starting the movement. Setting that record straight doesn’t diminish the guilt of participation. But in a world that had only known slavery as a well-established institution, it was first Christian evangelicals, and then the whole western hemisphere that began questioning and recognizing the evils of slavery.

Beyond your boorish & dull cliche of an insult – maybe you could actually educate yourself and realise that Britain and the US were not unique in being anti slavery – in freeing slaves nor making slavery illegal.

Wordsmith

Beyond your boorish & dull cliche of an insult – maybe you could actually educate yourself and realise that Britain and the US were not unique in being anti slavery – in freeing slaves nor making slavery illegal.

Heh, already was aware that pockets of individuals here and there throughout world history have been anti-slavery; but the first real anti-slavery movement that was the catalyst for worldwide opposition to an institution that had been accepted as “normal” for centuries throughout the 4 corners of the globe didn’t happen until Britain and the U.S., who actively sought to not only end it in their territories, but to end it all over the world.

Dr.D

Wordsmith

Three Brits arrive in South Asia in the 18th century–get some rudimentary knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and within a few weeks of their arrival they conjure up “Ashoka” the greatest king that ever was!

For Hundreds of years no Bharati had ever mentioned Ashoka, nor written about him. All of a sudden three White men describe Ashoka and he now is represented on the Bharati flag, currency notes and what not.

A clear case of manufactured history—

In order for Ashoka to exist–there must be historical references to his rule–either by historians of his time or Greek invaders who intermingled with the society, and impacted South Asia dramatically. The Hellenic influences were the genesis of The Gandhara Civilization. Amazingly the Greek, great historians from the Homer days–never mention King Ashoka or any corruption of his name. Neither do any Bharati historians list Ashoka by name.

Historians are curious to find out where the connection between the mythical figure and Sir James Princep’s narrative. There is no record of a Lankan priest describing anything to the British linguist.

GaffaUK

@Wordsmith

You can debate whether Ashoka existed or not – but you will also have to disprove that all the below are (wikipedia) myths as well… all which happened before the US made slavery illegal across it’s land – some independent of Britain’s efforts to end slavery worldwide (Interesting how you let the US – and independence country – ride the tailcoats of British efforts to end slavery…lol)

Question…

Where else in the world before Britain and the U.S. do you see evidence of any anti-slavery movement? They deserve unique credit, not unique blame for starting the movement.

1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in “border states” are freed by state action; separate law frees the slaves in Washington, D.C.

1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.

So efforts to end slavery from around 1787-1863 were largely driven by the British who even paid other countries to end slavery. But even then – the British were not UNIQUE in this. Slavery had been banned in other places before and during this time. It can be argued that the British had a unique position as the first truly global power with enough might at that time to make a impact globally against slavery. Whilst the US had people within who were part of the anti-slavery movement – the US was sluggish in getting rid of slavery on its own turf.

Wordsmith

I singled it because that was your baby, dude. YOU brought it to the fore. And I politely thanked you, because I was unfamiliar with it and wanted to look into it more. lol

but you will also have to disprove that all the below are (wikipedia) myths as well… all which happened before the US made slavery illegal across it’s land – some independent of Britain’s efforts to end slavery worldwide (Interesting how you let the US – and independence country – ride the tailcoats of British efforts to end slavery…lol)

Yah, and perhaps I should have clarified a bit more accurately in my original comment that it wasn’t until the U.S. and British movement that there was a real global effort to end the slave trade and slavery itself as an institution around the world. lol

Your own wiki link states:

It should be noted that many of these changes were reversed in practice over the succeeding centuries.

Gaffa writes:

So efforts to end slavery from around 1787-1863 were largely driven by the British who even paid other countries to end slavery. But even then – the British were not UNIQUE in this. Slavery had been banned in other places before and during this time. It can be argued that the British had a unique position as the first truly global power with enough might at that time to make a impact globally against slavery.

That’s a fair point that I’ll concede. However, there were localized anti-slavery laws and sentiments even before our Declaration.

For instance, as early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England believed that slavery was an offense to God.

The General Court of Massachusetts condemned the stealing of two African natives from their village to the New World when magistrates there found out about it. They ordered the two slaves to be returned back to their village. 2 yrs after that, Rhode Island passed legislation calling for “any slaves brought within the liberties of this Colonie” be set free after ten years “as the manner is with the English servants.”

Whilst the US had people within who were part of the anti-slavery movement – the US was sluggish in getting rid of slavery on its own turf.

it’s not a trump on American exceptionalism when America wasn’t even around in AD 9. China, however, was around for how long, prior…..? And did what exactly on behalf of pushing an anti-slavery movement forward?

ilovebeeswarzone

WORDSMITH: you mentionned that very important quote” dont forget how young the US was”
THAT makes a good way to compare the ages of countrys to assess, how long
it took each to ban slavery; SO USA stand In a very no1 as to how fast they realize the value of human been, and decide as a NEW NATION to not participate.
THE good old USA, already shaping into that TOLERANCE you see here at FA